Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ashes series/archive1

List of Ashes series

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is a former featured list, which I have tidied up, rewritten and improved the table functionality. I now believe it is on the way to regaining its status as a featured list, but would like to see where it is up to, and hopefully resolve as many issues as possible before nominating the article at WP:FLC.

I would like to draw particular attention to some changes I have made that may draw comment.

• I have removed the Test series played between the two sides that were not Ashes contests – I considered leaving them in, but figured that they really have no more place there than the series played pre-1882. I do still think there is room to comment on these, maybe in the prose, or maybe just as a footnote: opinions would be appreciated.
• The Summary of wins and draws table: it is unreferenced mainly due to the fact that the information is extracted from the table above. I could provide the reference "Records / England / Test matches / Series results". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 2011-02-19. which contains all the information on who won which series and by how many matches, but even that does not explicitly state the figures.
• The time line: it looks okay, but I'm not its biggest fan, and I'm not sure if having a section to itself is the most appropriate location.

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 00:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• " It is the most celebrated rivalry in international cricket" prove it.

• I've toned the comment down slightly, and provided three references to support what I've put, how's that? Harrias ^talk 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Although the first Test series played between the countries was in 1876–77" did the first Test really take place over two years...?!

• Fair point: do you think it'd be better to get a direct ref for 1877, or say "the 1876–77 season"?

• The second works fine for me, kind of tied into the comment below about seasons/tours/hemispheres etc. The Rambling Man (talk)

• "the English party" any reason why not to just stick with "the England team"?

• Changed as suggested.

• "being victors in 123 of the 310 Ashes contests" tighten with "winning 123 of the 310 matches." (also, might be confusing to non-experts that they've won less than half but that's better than England...

• Might be, but the tables below will explain the draws. Can add a note in maybe?

• I think so, let's let this one go for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "once more than" one more.

• Are you sure? Once more sounds more appropriate to me: but I'm probably wrong.

• Not worth quibbling about. I could be wrong too. Let's leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe worth a footnote to non-experts explaining the way you represent cricket seasons, i.e. northern hemisphere season (e.g. 1984) and southern hemisphere season (e.g. 1984–85).

• Definitely: silly problem though, what can I use as a reference for this?!

• It is a problem, perhaps Wisden could help somehow? Using some examples? Or ask at WT:CRIC as it seems to be a uniquely cricket issue... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Found a reference for this. Harrias ^talk 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Urn caption could be expanded, like where the urn is held, that only a replica is presented, that sort of thing. as long as it's referenced!
• Don't like the timeline but can see its utility. Fails ACCESS as colours only are used to convey information.

• Yeah, as I say, I'm not keen. Would taking it out be such a loss?

• I don't think it would be a major loss. It's interesting, but could use some real work if it stays. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• First match column doesn't sort correctly (I guess if it needs to be sortable, it should sort by the day of the year, not the initial digit...)

• How noob of me! I'll go through that later.
• Fixed this now. Harrias ^talk 14:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Key - those are parentheses, not brackets.

• Yeah, always do that. Fixed now.

• Image captions could use references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the pointers, fixed some, and will work on the others. Harrias ^talk 13:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Moondyne

The lead prose is a vast improvement, nice work. It does seem to favour the Aussies though. Is there not something notable we could say for England, say Botham's 1981 series to add some balance?

• There is an unreferenced article at Cricket season, FYI.

• Linked to this in the key: it could do with the same reference I'm searching for though!

• I am admittedly biased because I created it, but I think the timeline does add something that the table and prose cannot. Happy for it to be improved but I have no suggestions.

• I'll leave it in and see what comments it gets when the article goes back to FLC.

• Inclusion of the non-Ashes series was discussed on the talk page earlier. Logically they should be excluded, but again, I think they add something useful for the reader wondering why certain tours aren't listed. Is this a case of IAR? Moondyne (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know. I'm personally against their inclusion, and if they were to appear, I'd want them in a completely separate table to the Ashes contests: but then the page should just be renamed List of Test series between Australia and England. I really don't know! Harrias ^talk 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not that bothered tbh. Moondyne (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image thumb sizes should be left to user default
• Caption "Don Bradman (left), who has scored more runs in the Ashes than any other player, at the toss of the first Test of the 1936–37 Ashes with Gubby Allen." "has" somehow implies present tense. In any case, it seems superfluous. 03:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

• "It is generally played biennially, alternating between the United Kingdom and Australia." Mention that the location of play is what alternates. It may also be better to be more specific than United Kingdom.

• I'm probably being thick: but what else could it mean? Also, how could I phrase this without it sounding a bit wooden. Similar for the specifics: "alternating between England and Wales and Australia" doesn't exactly convey the right meaning!

• I'm not sure what else it could mean, I just feel it doesn't convey the message well. Perhaps something like. "It is generally played biennially, with the location alternating between grounds in Australia and grounds in England and Wales." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Although the first Test series played between the countries was in the 1876–77 season, the Ashes originated from the solitary Test which the two nations competed in 1882" Stick with either "countries" or "nations". I'd personally go with nations, as this is what Englad is referred to in most sporting contexts.

• Changed to nations.

• "After their loss to Australia in 1882, England won the next eight series between the two sides, during which time they only lost four of the 22 Tests." It hasn't been mentioned that each series is more than one test match.

• Have added something to explain this in the first paragraph: it might sound a bit forced, thoughts?

• Perhaps make the sentence about the biennial play the second sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "It was during this period that the Australians travelled to England in 1948, and remained unbeaten during the whole tour, gaining the nickname of "The Invincibles"." Reword this somehow, I understand it means that the team that travelled was given that nickname, but that doesn't come through clearly.

• How would this sound: "It was during this period that the Australian cricket team gained the nickname of "The Invincibles", after they remained unbeaten during the whole tour of the 1948 tour of England." ?

• Sounds good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the last lead paragraph remove words like "Overall" and "only". That might ease the apparent bias.

• Have removed 'overall' and one occasion of 'only', how is it now? Harrias ^talk 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Much better Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Summary of wins and draws" "Rename to Summary of Results" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Harrias ^talk 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "There have been five drawn series, and on four of these occasions, Australia have retained the Ashes due to being holders going into the series. England have once retained the Ashes after a drawn series." Might be worth somehow combining these sentences. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)